Anti-social behaviour: new powers

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 will come into force on 20 October. This new legislation introduces a significantly changed tool kit for local authorities, the police and other local bodies to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). The legislation should enable local priorities to shape the response to ASB and put the needs of the victim first. This briefing outlines some key features of the new legislation and considers some of the implications for London, particularly regarding the Community Trigger, which enables communities to force action on ASB cases.

Background

ASB is behaviour that can cause distress, nuisance or harassment to others including vandalism, graffiti, threatening behaviour, dumping rubbish and joyriding. Actions such as vandalism, graffiti, selling drugs or harassment are crimes. Some behaviour such as a neighbour playing the radio loudly, may seem insignificant as a one-off, but can have a serious negative impact if part of a persistent pattern of behaviour. And as we know this type of behaviour is often directed at the most vulnerable members of our society, which has at times led to the most tragic of consequences. Anti-social behaviour can also prevent parts of London from being improved and developed.

The wide range of crimes and behaviours covered by the term ASB necessitates a multi-agency agency response including housing providers, police, fire service and local authorities; it has also historically meant a large tool kit for dealing with the issue. This tool kit is now being stripped down.

The new legislation aims to enable communities to play a bigger role in tackling the problem. The new powers also mark a clear move to focus more on the needs of the victim. This briefing outlines some key features of the legislation and considers some of the implications for London.

Analysis

Why is tackling ASB important?

Anti-social behaviour can clearly blight people’s lives. ASB has also been shown to be a key driver for public confidence in the police(^1). Where ASB is not nipped in the bud, crime, especially violence with injury and criminal damage, usually increases. Both of these crimes feature in the seven key neighbourhood crimes identified in the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) Policing and Crime Plan 2013-2016, and will be used to measure police performance in London.

______________________________________________________________________

1. The Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey 2013 identified the following drivers of public confidence in policing: Engagement with the Community, Fair Treatment, Effectiveness in Dealing with Crime, and Alleviating Local ASB. While there has been a year-on-year decline in overall reports of ASB to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Central Command 2010 – 2013, complaints around noise and rowdy neighbours still persist.

A year-on-year decline in overall reports of ASB

A Streamlined Toolkit Since the Anti-Social Behaviour Act of 2003, local authorities, the police and others between them have had 19 specific tools to deal with ASB. The present government felt that the existing legislation was over-complicated and potentially hindered a more victim focused approach. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 simplifies these 19 powers down to six. Brief details of the six new tools are set out below:

1: Civil injunctions are aimed at preventing individuals from engaging in ASB, ideally nipping the activity in the bud, before it escalates and causes more nuisance or harm. Civil injunctions can be for housing and non-housing related ASB and are tested on the balance of probabilities.

2. The introduction of Civil Injunctions has been delayed until at least January while the Home Office make changes to the legal aid system, to ensure that applications for advocacy assistance can be assessed for those involved in civil injunction hearings. While all injunctions issued by the county or high court will have prohibitions attached, some may also include positive requirements aimed at addressing the underlying causes of the individual’s anti-social behaviour. While breach of the injunction is not a criminal offence, it can carry an unlimited fine or up to two years in prison for an adult. Applicants for civil injunctions can include local councils and can now be used for under 18s.

2: Criminal Behaviour Orders are issued by a criminal court to people convicted of an offence, to prevent them from engaging in anti-social behaviour. In most cases the applicant for the criminal behaviour order will be the Crown Prosecution Service, though this can be at the request of the local council. A breach of this order is a criminal offence and must be proved to a criminal standard of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt. As with Civil injunctions, Criminal Behaviour Orders have the scope to specify positive requirements, to focus on long-term solutions. Unlike the old Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, there is no longer a need to prove “necessity” to issue an order.

3: Dispersal powers enable police and police community support officers to direct people committing or likely to commit anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder to leave a public place for up to 48 hours. A police chief constable must designate the power to uniformed police officers and police community support officers, there is however no requirement for the police to consult the local council in implementing the dispersal power. A breach of a dispersal order is a criminal offence and can carry a penalty of three months in prison for adults.

4: Community Protection Notices (CPN) are designed to deal with environmental anti-social behaviour which spoils the quality of life for a community, which could include the state of a premises, noise emitting from machinery, noise caused by a vehicle or insects emanating from a business premises. CPNs may be used against individuals as well as organisations and businesses. A breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and may carry fine of up to £20,000 for businesses or £2,500 for individuals. Local authorities (and social landlords if designated by the council) may issue CPNs, as may police officers and police community support officers.

5: Public space protection orders (PSPO) are designed to stop individuals or groups from committing anti-social behaviour in a public space. This can include restrictions on consuming alcohol in a public place or controlling the presence of dogs such as excluding them from playgrounds or restricting the number of dogs that can be walked by one person at any one time. Local authorities can issue a PSPO after consultation with the police (this is likely to be at Borough Commander level in London), and other relevant bodies. Council officers may enforce PSPOs, a breach of which is a criminal offence. Importantly, more than one restriction can be added to the same PSPO that means that, a single Order can deal with a wider range of behaviours than the orders it replaces.

6: Closure powers allow the local authority or police to quickly close premises which are being used, or likely to be used, to commit nuisance or disorder. This power can be used for up to 48 hours out of court and is intended to cover a wide range of behaviours in a quick and flexible way. A breach of a closure notice is a criminal offence.

A victim focussed approach to dealing with anti-social behaviour

The ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is designed to shift the focus from centrally set targets, and the type of behaviour, to looking at the impacts on the lives of victims. The legislation also aims to move away from a “one size fits all” approach to enabling local professionals to implement more tailored responses. Key components in the “putting victims first” approach are the Community Trigger and Community Remedy. These two tools also carry statutory duties for the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), which in London’s case is carried out by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC). The Community Trigger gives victims and communities the right to request a review of their case, where they feel they did not get a satisfactory response, and bring agencies together to take a joined up approach to find a solution. The relevant agencies, including the local authority, are required to carry out a case review if an application for a review has been made and the local threshold for a review has been met. The review threshold is set by relevant partners, which may include councils, the police, Clinical Commissioning Groups and registered providers of social housing.

Local agencies are able to define the Community Trigger threshold level for their area, in consultation with the PCC, and as long as it is not more than three complaints in the previous six-month period. London boroughs have been working with MOPAC to scope out the potential for a shared level for the Community Trigger across London, and have agreed on the following:

Victims of ASB can apply to activate the Trigger if they have reported ASB to the council, police or a registered housing provider three times in the last six months.

A shared threshold across London could potentially deliver the following benefits:

1. Easier for Londoners and ASB victims to understand their entitlements, particularly where issues are cross-borough.
2. Easier for partner organisations who work in more than one London borough, e.g. housing associations.
3. Economies of scale for producing communications materials to promote the Trigger across London.
4. Processes can be more easily understood by all stakeholders and partner agencies.
5. There can be a single ‘go live’ date for the Community Trigger in London.

The Community Remedy gives victims a say in the out-of-court punishment for low-level crime and anti-social behaviour. The Community Remedy document is a list of actions which may be chosen by the victim for the perpetrator to undertake in consequence of their behaviour or offending. The Community Remedy document must be published. There is a duty on the PPC to consult with members of the public and community representatives on what they would consider appropriate to be included in the document. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has written to borough leaders as a part of this consultation process, with the following possible menu:

1. Apology (face-to-face or by letter).
2. Agreement (e.g. acceptable behaviour contract, parenting contract).
3. Structured diversionary activity such as educational/training courses (self-funded or otherwise).
4. Targeted intervention – alcohol treatment or anger management courses.
5. Restorative Justice or mediation – third party to bring together both parties to reach common agreement.
6. Reparation direct to the victim for any damage caused (financial or otherwise).
7. Reparation direct to the community (unpaid work for a limited time).
8. Counselling. The Community Remedy maybe applied by a police officer for low-level offences, where the individual has admitted to the behaviour, and as an alternative to court proceedings. The actual menu used by each borough will depend on local availability for implementing the actions.

**New absolute ground for possession** The Act introduces a new absolute ground for possession of secure and assured tenancies where anti-social behaviour or criminality has already been proven in court. This measure has been introduced with the intention of expediting the eviction of landlords’ (including local authorities) most anti-social tenants, to bring faster relief to victims. Importantly, and in contrast with the existing discretionary grounds for possession, the landlord will not be required to prove to the court that it is reasonable to grant possession.

**Dangerous Dogs** Parts 1 – 6 of the Act introduces legislation to tackle anti-social behaviour in a flexible and responsive way. These parts have implications for the management of dogs, and law enforcement involving dogs, in the community. Part 7 of the Act amends the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The amendments extend the offence of a dangerously out of control dog to all places, including private property where the dog has the right to be and make explicit that an attack on an assistance dog is an aggravated offence.

**Commentary** The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 looks set to achieve some of it stated objectives, most notably reducing the number of tools available to address anti-social behaviour and to give victims a greater say in tackling the problem.

The Act also looks set to run into some significant challenges and will raise issues for local authorities. For example the ability to pose positive requirements for Civil Injunctions and Criminal Behaviour Orders such as alcohol and drug rehabilitation programmes, and anger management courses will require funding as well as time to administer and the Act does not make it clear how these will be achieved. Also, perpetrators of ASB may see injunctions as being less punitive than stand-alone ASBOs and will therefore be less likely to stop their behaviour without the use of legislation.

While the non-prescriptive theme in the Act that allows for tailored local solutions and the judgement of frontline professionals is welcome there are areas where more guidance could have been provided such as the new absolute ground for possession for ASB. Local authorities and other housing providers however face the prospect of costly legal challenges in proving that a particular eviction is proportionate.

The powers around closure orders are more flexible, but this flexibility means that it may be harder to manage risk for vulnerable victims and residents, especially in regards cases where there may be Domestic Abuse or other safeguarding concerns.

The Community Remedy, in order to be effective, will need more practical guidance and training for police officers on restorative justice and how and what to implement. The Community Trigger has the potential to be beneficial to not only those in our communities who feel aggrieved that their complaints have not been prioritised by local organisations, but also a means to check that partnerships are prioritising and resourcing issues that affect local people. It will give partnerships an opportunity to review cases and ensure that there has been an effective case management of the complaint and that agencies involved share information to allow the review to be as effective as possible. The Community Trigger can also be used locally to encourage vulnerable victims who are currently not reporting crimes, to do so.

Author: Rangan Momen, Principal Project and Policy Officer (T: 020 7934 9816) Click here to send a comment or query to the author

Links: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

This member briefing has been circulated to: Portfolio holders and those members who requested policy briefings in the following categories: Crime; Environment; Housing